Allowed

Puneet Pratap Singh Alias Puchchu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2023ABAIL/13496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two applicants in a case involving attempted murder. They had been summoned under S. 319 Cr.P.C. after a police closure report, alleging false implication. Considering their lack of antecedents and reliance on Supreme Court precedent, bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released forthwith on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

Puneet Pratap Singh Alias Puchchu and Another… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236903

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13496 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Puneet Pratap Singh Alias Puchchu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Pankaj Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Sessions Trial No.366 of 2021 (State vs. Anil) arising out of Case Crime No.113 of 2020 registered under Sections 307 and 34 IPC at Police Station- Saifai, District Etawah with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith co-accused person Anil Kumar and one unknown person are stated to have abducted the son of the informant on 17.05.2020 at about 1:00 p.m. from the village and are stated to have assaulted him with an intention to cause his death causing grievous injuries to him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They were exonerated by the police and the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted against the co-accused person Anil Kumar only who is facing the trial in S.T. No.366 of 2021. Learned counsel has further stated that during prosecution evidence, three witnesses of fact have been examined and an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant, on which the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 30.09.2023.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to

¶13

the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. They shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that had the applicants not caught hold of the injured person, the said offence would not have been committed, as such they are guilty of causing offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Although, they have not disputed the facts that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and closure report was filed qua them.

¶15

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., taking into consideration the fact that the applicants have been summoned by invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as closure report was filed with respect to them, and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶16

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Puneet Pratap Singh Alias Puchchu and Gotu Alias Lalu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

(ii). that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶20

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶22

witness;

¶23

(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶24

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.12.2023 Ravi Kant

¶27

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Puneet Pratap Singh Alias Puchchu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Pratap Singh Alias Puchchu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahid @ Sem Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anita Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarik and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jarisa Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajmat and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Naim Vs State of U.P. and Another